Alex Steer writes:

The numbers are changing constantly, but at time of writing, somewhere around 1,800 people (over 1,600 in Mexico) have been infected with the new ‘swine flu’ strain, and 103 people have died. The World Health Organization is coordinating the response, calling it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

When reading headlines like these, our thoughts naturally turn to the past and the future: where did this come from, and where will it lead? Our impressions of the past often inform the futures we imagine. We know about the possibilities of pandemic disease, even if few of us have experienced them. In 1919 between 20 and 100 million people worldwide were killed by an influenza pandemic; between 1982 and 2007 more than 2 million died of AIDS.

From flesh-eating viruses to ebola to winter vomiting, we are fascinated by the extremely unpredictable: the small outlying cause that transforms our lives; the sick man on the plane who brings down a city. Modern zombie lore is driven more by our fear of inexplicable pandemic outbreaks than by our belief in voodoo. (If you don’t believe me, watch 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead and Dead Set in succession. But don’t do it late at night.)

Pandemics, unlike zombies, have full and active social lives. Even events which seem radically unpredictable have driving forces, many of which don’t need a microscope to be seen. They range from urbanisation to the dense migration networks and transport systems which increase each infectious person’s sphere of influence; from healthcare policies which exclude uninsured low-income workers from care to lumbering organisational structures which make it hard to close roads or supply drugs at short notice. It takes a whole range of forces, not just a few strands of RNA, to make a pandemic.

Our own stories also drive our behaviour. In the hour before this post was written, 24,000 stories containing the word ‘swine flu’ were indexed by Google News. This morning airlines and hotel chains saw steep declines in their share value. Newspapers carried photos of travellers at UK airports wearing masks.

Swine flu may or may not go pandemic, but so far it isn’t even close. Each year 3-4,000 people in the UK die of normal-strain influenza. Our response is out of all proportion to the clinical risk. It reflects our fascination with the pigs-might-fly rareness of new diseases, and our unwillingness to grapple with the other factors that affect how, when, and where people get sick.

The picture of that childhood game of chance, “Pass the Pigs”, was borrowed, with thanks, from Kaptain Kobold on Flickr.

Giles Powdrill writes:

Since 2004 The Futures Company has worked with Aviva, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, on an annual survey focussed on understanding consumer attitudes to saving and investing. In total, more than 100,000 people have taken part in the survey since its inception. Geographically, the scope has grown year on year from 11 countries in 2004 to the 25 covered in 2008.

2008’s global survey was also topped up by an additional omnibus survey of key tracking questions in six markets, to understand how attitudes were changing as the credit crisis intensified, in late October 2008.

The results formed the basis of a recent speech given by Amanda Mackenzie. Aviva’s Group Marketing Director, at Chatham House (opens in pdf). To summarise some of the main findings:

Short termism – In 2008, the majority of people surveyed, in every market, said that the short term (within the next 5 years) was the most important timescale for them when thinking about savings and investments and the importance of this short term context overall has been a growing trend since the survey began.

Financial vulnerability – People feel financially exposed. The 2008 survey revealed that across the markets surveyed only one in four people felt that they had enough savings or investments to cope with the unexpected. Although this sentiment was felt most strongly in many of the Central and Eastern European countries, the omnibus research in October showed that feelings of vulnerability in more economically mature countries like the US and Germany have increased noticeably over the preceding nine months.

Aversion to risk - Less than a third of those interviewed in 2008 agreed that they were prepared to accept a higher level of risk for their savings in return for a higher possible return and although this figure had remained consistent across the five years of core research, the omnibus survey showed evidence of this risk aversion strengthening in the more mature economies since the credit crunch took hold. The research has highlighted consistently that when people think about financial returns from their savings they tend to prefer products which offer safer or guaranteed options over those which offer the highest or most competitive returns.

Barriers to saving - The greatest reported barriers to saving more have consistently been lack of affordability and existing debts, however lack of trust in financial institutions as a determining factor has risen dramatically over the course of this year. For instance only 8% of respondents in the US cited it as a barrier in Q1 2008 but this had then risen to 25% by Q4. Over the same period it rose from 15% to 27% in Ireland and from 13% to 22% in the UK.

Retirement concern – In almost every country surveyed the majority of pre-retired people said that they were worried that they wouldn’t have enough money when they retire to provide an adequate standard of living, and this has been the case since the survey began. However, significantly fewer people in most countries said that they were actually regularly setting aside money for use in retirement (despite also acknowledging that saving or investing regularly was the most practical way to secure a comfortable retirement). A mismatch between anxiety and action which creates some potentially worrying pension provision gaps.

Working later – One response to this potential lack of retirement provision, from a consumer point of view at least, may lie in simply working until later in life. In fact, rather than seeing this an unappealing prospect, in 2008 the majority of pre-retired people agreed that they would like to work, either full time or part time, after the usual retirement age. There was considerable geographical variation in answering this question though; the more established Asian markets such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan expressed the greatest desire to carry on their employment into their later years whilst those in Continental Europe (France, Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium) were least enamoured with the idea.

Countries covered in the 2008 research: Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Russia, Ireland, India, Australia, Romania, USA, Italy, Lithuania, Turkey, UK, Sri Lanka, Poland, Canada, Spain, Czech Rep, Malaysia, Hungary, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France.

A summary report of the key findings from the research has now been published and is available for download on Aviva’s website.

Tom Ding writes:

When I discovered last week that my brand new phone gives me unlimited Google Maps on-the-go, I had one of those ‘The Future Has Arrived’ moments, able to locate the nearest pubs and bus stops at a glance. Which got me to thinking about the different functions of a map, and how cleverly Google has partitioned them. You see, Google Maps is useful indeed: It can be a Sat Nav in your pocket or a route-finder on your PC and it has an interface perfectly suited for such quick tasks.

Perhaps though, we should regard it as the latest evolution of the 1920s ‘wrist-mounted, wind-up Sat-Nav’ shown in the picture at the top of this post. Google Maps gives you no context. It is great, so long as you know exactly where you want to go to. It is a road map, not an atlas, and definitely not a globe.

And this is where Google Earth comes in. Here, exactly the same data has been used for something completely different, and this time it is all about looking, rather than finding. Instead of the watch, I think of Google Earth as being a modern equivalent of the Gallery of Maps in the Vatican- somewhere that you go when you cannot see a place first-hand, somewhere that you could easily lose a few hours and somewhere that not enough people know about.

And Google Earth is getting better. We are now all free, in a Wikipedia-esque spirit of collaboration, to hack the program, at least a little bit, and create our own ‘layers’ dedicated to whatever topic we choose. Just this week, someone has published a layer called “Crisis in Darfur“. There is a layer of “Lighthouses in New Zealand” and another of Frank Gehry buildings. With all of this within a couple of clicks reach, I can’t help but feel like Google is biding their time here- waiting for their user-generated library to reach a critical mass before they tell the world about it.

By then, it will not just be an old fashioned globe, but an encyclopedia inside a globe. We will be able to visually explore almost any subject by geography, by topic and by time. And then, well, then the future really will have arrived.

Andrew Curry writes:

I chaired a session this week at the Building Futures ‘Futures Fair‘ at the RIBA in London at which Reinier de Graaf, of the architectural practice OMA, talked about the development of Dubai – and some of its implications. The city has grown (been grown) from nothing in 15 years, and every significant architectural practice in the world, OMA included, is building something there. de Graaf described the city as a “multitude of competing theme parks”, as the “monotony of the exceptional”. He added that “there are as many billboards as buildings, and the billboards hold the promise of the finished city”.

The city is – famously – building out into the sea, and before long more than half of the population of Dubai will be living on sea rather than land. This isn’t because of a shortage of land, for there are miles of desert inland. de Graaf observed laconically:

One prefers to make projects in the sea, because they are more expensive and more difficult, and therefore more marketable, because one markets their difficulty.

But this isn’t just a story about urban ostentation. The development of Dubai followed a long-term decision by the Emirates to reduce its dependence on oil, and the last year in which oil contributed more than half of national revenues was in 1985. The three property companies which are building Dubai are each half-owned by the UAE Royal Family, and the men who run them all hold positions in the Emirates government. Property is now one of the Emirates’ biggest exports, and its property companies are now building in all of the fastest growing cities in the world, from Morocco to the Philippines. As Reinier de Graaf noted, ‘the Dubai model’ represents a challenge to our received wisdom that democracy represents the best guarantee of economic prosperity.

Joe Ballantyne writes:

Back in the late 90s, and even more recently, globalisation was all the rage. Some people thought this was a jolly good thing and it would make us all rich and free, while others thought it was a really bad thing. which would lead to greater poverty and environmental damage. Either way, almost everyone agreed that we were careering towards a brave new globalised world, ruled by the free flow of capital between nations, and characterised by global institutions and global flows of people and goods.

Fast forward a decade, however, and things start to look quite a bit different. Countries like India, Russia and China are much wealthier and more powerful than ten years ago, the expansion of international groupings such as the EU seems to have all but halted, and the ongoing drama of the credit crunch suggests that financial deregulation has reached its limits. Protectionism is a recurring theme in the Democrat candidates’ contest in the US, and the chief executive of Deutsche Bank was recently quoted as saying that he “no longer believes in the market’s self-healing power” – and when the head of a major bank starts saying that financial markets need some sort of state intervention, you know something’s up. The public seem to think so: most of us admit a growing suspicion around the role free markets in the economy.

So how did the global theorists – from both the left and the right – so misjudge globalisation? There’s a whole thesis to be written on this, but some pointers could be:

• Many of them were working in internationally-focussed institutions such as universities or global banks – which probably blinded them to the attitudes of the majority who weren’t globetrotting, post-national types.

• Many of them had come to believe the widely canvassed idea that financial power will always trump state power – where as in fact, nationalism is a tremendously strong driver of domestic politics and therefore of political change.

• The Brits in particular lived in a country which had probably gone further than almost any other towards developing a ‘post-national’ identity, embracing the market and minimising the role of national symbols such as the monarchy, religion and so on. But what happened in Britain wasn’t replicated elsewhere.

One of the things we say in futures work is that if the filters you see the world through are too strong, they act like the blinkers on a horse – and create blind spots which make it harder to see signs of change. It’s interesting to think of other blindspots our assumptions about the world might create for us.

The picture was taken by David Eppstein.

]]> http://blog.thefuturescompany.com/2008/04/24/blind-spots-on-globalisation/feed/ 1 thenextwavefutures David Eppstein, Containers, 2001 http://blog.thefuturescompany.com/2008/03/14/eating-the-planet/ http://blog.thefuturescompany.com/2008/03/14/eating-the-planet/#comments Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:00:13 +0000 thenextwavefutures http://henleycentreheadlightvision.wordpress.com/?p=157 ]]>

Trevor Harvey writes:

I contributed to an event run by one of our food retail clients this week, and one of the other speakers showed some pictures from Hungry Planet, a photo-essay (“30 families, 24 countries, 600 meals”) about who eats what around the world.

Time magazine did a selection of the families, with some data on their food budgets and their favourite meals, and there’s also a audio feature from the US National Public Radio show All Things Considered with an associated web page which has the full weekly food shops from four of the 30 families (Darfur, Gemany, the USA, and China).

Looking through the pictures, it seems as if – with the obvious exception of the very poor – that those with more money for their food budgets are likely to have worse nutrition, at least judging by the amount of processed foods on display. They have less fresh food and an awful lot more packaging. In contrast, those with smaller budgets tend to have favourite family meals (the richer families talk about ‘favourite foods’ – processed again – rather than favourite meals). At risk of romanticising, the poorer families also seem to be smiling a lot more.

One of the trends we’re noticing at the moment is that the proportion of income spent on food is going up, for the first time in three decades. This is partly because basic prices are going up. Although it’s a complex story, it’s possible to imagine that a combination of price increases, the pursuit of wellbeing, and a desire for the more authentic might mean that the more affluent will start shifting their food budgets to more natural foodstuffs – with the health benefits that would follow.

The photo above by Peter Menzel, taken from The Hungry Planet, shows the Melander family, from Bargteheide, Germany, with a week’s worth of food.

Eleanor Cooksey writes:

I recently read WPP’s annual journal of marketing insights, Atticus, and noted an interesting point towards the end of an article called ‘Getting the little things right’, by a team at the digital agency Digit, in London. [Not currently online, unfortunately].

They discuss how product and service design, in particular for electronic media, tends to reflect ‘Californian’ values, which include ‘pragmatism (a can-do attitude and belief in prototyping), audacity (focus on innovation and the pioneering spirit) and a certain lightness of touch (playfulness and optimism)’. Perhaps not surprising, they say, since so many user interface principles came out of Silicon Valley in the ’80s and ’90s. When one thinks of Apple, for example, it’s easy to see how these values translate into product experience.

But users in other regions expect an experience which reflects their important values. In Europe, this might include ‘conviviality (social not solitary) and quality (craftsmanship, individualism, local provenance). Nokia, for example, has recently shown prototype handsets which embed ‘green values’ and social responsibility.

But as the global design market becomes more integrated, it may become increasingly hard in the future to work out whose values are inherent in services and products.

Image ‘ipod’ copyright 2007 Apple Inc.

Image ‘eco phone’ copyright 2008 Nokia.

The New York Times recently reported that India is now outsourcing outsourcing- a number of large Indian companies are hiring workers and opening offices not only in developing countries, but even in Northern American cities in some cases. The looping of outsourcing back to the developed West where average costs of supplies and wages are much higher can be mind-boggling as it appears to be counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom of cost minimization. But large companies like India’s Infosys Technolgies and Wipro are thinking beyond just wages and cost reductions. By gaining a comparative advantage in managing labor flows across continents, these companies are thriving to be “global matchmakers in outsourcing,” accumulating human capital that are crucial in serving local and specific knowledge to distant markets and clients.

The report illustrates the phenomenon but using an example of a company in the United States paying an Indian vendor 7,000 miles away to supply it with Mexican engineers working just 150 miles south of the US border. Now, outsiders may find it absurd for the company to outsource so far away for a service that is so close to home, but if the Indian firm can render the same service effectively at the equivalent or cheaper prices, then this transaction goes to show the lessening in importance of physical distance for many global service-based industries. With today’s communication capabilities, the world is perhaps flatter than we once thought. After all, nothing can really be that surprising in the world of outsourcing after that one Californian newspaper outsourced two journalists in India for reporting local news in fair Pasadena.

The Core 77 design blog has a good piece on the reasons for Nokia’s innovation success.

In summary they are:

• the maths – go where the markets are (Nokia has increased its lead over competitors in the emerging markets yet again
• design it for the markets you’re selling in (Nokia has a design lab in Bangalore; in emerging markets features which enable phone sharing may be more useful than megapixels)
• ‘Show the people’ – do the marketing at the right level (Nokia has been using promotional vehicles, literally: vans and even railway carriages.